Malcolm wrote:
Hahaha, no, there will always be just as much confusion.

Not if the translator is realized.

Hahahahahaahahahhaha, the Buddha was a buddha, and people were still confused as shit by his teachings, and he taught them directly in their own language.

A realized translator is a desiderata, but go ahead and show me one, and then tell me how it is that you know they are realized. And further, if the translator is realized, what is the point of his or her making translations when they can just teach directly from their experience?

Scriptural evidence and teacher's authority showing a realized translator :
" ... ... Exiled to Tsawarong, Vairotsana spread the Dharma and put all the citizens of Tsawarong on the path to enlightenment. He also went to China to meet various scholars. When he returned from exile, everybody was happy, worshipping and prostrating to him, his main disciple Yudra Nyingpo, and Vimalamitra, and honoring him with praise :

A great translator such as you, Vairotsana,
Has definitely never come before and definitely will not come again in the future.
Your knowledge goes from the Tripitaka up to the Great Perfection.
A supreme scholar such as you, Vairotsana,
Has definitely never come before and definitely will not come again in the future.
In the future, whoever just understands colloquial Indian language
Will think they are great translators, but they will not even come close
To a part of a little bit of the knowledge of Vairotsana.
Even though Vairotsana is called a translator, he is actually a sublime scholar.
You Tibetans must know how much you owe to him for Dharma.
In the future, if reverse shastras occur,
Judge them by Vairotsana's translations.
The light of his teachings, you Tibetans,
Can purify the darkness of ignorance.

... ... Without relying on Vairotsana and his original translations, the Buddha's speech and the shastras of sublime beings would not have been complete in Tibet. Even when we just translate banal things from one language to another, it is difficult to achieve the actual meaning. If we translate even a single page of the Buddhist canon, due to our stupidity we build enormous passions higher than Mount Meru, instead of following Vairotsana's dustless sky mind...

The great Ngok Lotsawa Loden Sherab, whose emanation was predicted in the Mula Tantra, which is the same as the Manjushri Root Tantra, praised Vairotsana and other sublime scholars and translators :
Vairotsana's knowledge is as pervasive as the sky.
Kawa Palsek and Chokro Lui Gyaltsen are like the sun and moon.
Rinchen Zangpo is like a dawn star.
Before them, I am like a butterfly.

Even the king of the vidyadharas, Padmasambhava praised Vairotsana saying, 'Vairotsana is the same as me.' "

- Thinley Norbu Rinpoche, pg xii to xiv, introduction : putting the story in historical context, book called The Great Image : The Life Story of Vairochana

Vairotsana made translations because he knew that in the future some translators in the west will translate his translations.

To contextualise and paraphrase the above praise vis-a-vis today's Tibetan-to-English translators, hopefully :
In the future, whoever just understands colloquial Tibetan language
Will think they are great translators, but they will not even come close
To a part of a little bit of the knowledge of Vairotsana.

Hahahahahaahahahhaha, the Buddha was a buddha, and people were still confused as shit by his teachings, and he taught them directly in their own language.

A realized translator is a desiderata, but go ahead and show me one, and then tell me how it is that you know they are realized. And further, if the translator is realized, what is the point of his or her making translations when they can just teach directly from their experience?

My friend, I was referring to the present day, not the eighth century in Tibet. Of course we all accept that Bagor Vairocana was a realized person. But you do understand that in the end, all such authority depends on your acceptance of it as such, correct?

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahahaahahahhaha, the Buddha was a buddha, and people were still confused as shit by his teachings, and he taught them directly in their own language.

A realized translator is a desiderata, but go ahead and show me one, and then tell me how it is that you know they are realized. And further, if the translator is realized, what is the point of his or her making translations when they can just teach directly from their experience?

My friend, I was referring to the present day, not the eighth century in Tibet. Of course we all accept that Bagor Vairocana was a realized person. But you do understand that in the end, all such authority depends on your acceptance of it as such, correct?

And of course, citations are not enough. You also need reasoning.

I think you'll agree that when the teaching is coming from a text revealed by the guru the blessings are intense. The same is true for a text the teacher has actually realize in practice.

Also I would think that you have at least some degree of realization of these texts just based on my experience of you.

I don't think the early sutras are good example of what we're talking about in texts and blessings related to Vajrayana. Those texts do not talk about unbroken lineage.

Last edited by Crazywisdom on Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My friend, I was referring to the present day, not the eighth century in Tibet. Of course we all accept that Bagor Vairocana was a realized person. But you do understand that in the end, all such authority depends on your acceptance of it as such, correct?

And of course, citations are not enough. You also need reasoning.

I think you'll agree that when the teaching is coming from a text revealed by the girl the blessings are intense.

Also I would think that you have at least some degree of realization of these texts just based on my experience of you.

All I can say for myself is that I have been incredibly fortunate to receive the blessings of many fantastic masters. To them I owe any qualities I may have developed.

just to give a slightly different view on translation,
how about ‘that the translator be in a state of understanding of the subject as was the writer of the original text ‘. Which gives scope for both poetic and academic according to the style of the translator.

Hahahahahaahahahhaha, the Buddha was a buddha, and people were still confused as shit by his teachings, and he taught them directly in their own language.

A realized translator is a desiderata, but go ahead and show me one, and then tell me how it is that you know they are realized. And further, if the translator is realized, what is the point of his or her making translations when they can just teach directly from their experience?

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit? I'm not familiar with those five rules.

He said that there are five instances where a word should be left untranslated (literally 五種不翻)

-If the word has multiple meanings (like arhart and bhagavat)

-Esoteric terms like mantras, incantations, etc

-Terms of reverence, if saying the word has some resonance (prajna-paramita, manjushri, amitabha, vairocana)

-Terms with no local equivalent/words for things that don't exist outside of india (no precise english word that really means the exact same thing)
This is why words like yaksha were not translated.

-Words that have been left untranslated by previous translators (in other words there is a precedent) (Following the spirit of this we could also arrive at the conclusions that words like refuge and empowerment have precedent.

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit? I'm not familiar with those five rules.

He said that there are five instances where a word should be left untranslated (literally 五種不翻)

-If the word has multiple meanings (like arhart and bhagavat)

-Esoteric terms like mantras, incantations, etc

-Terms of reverence, if saying the word has some resonance (prajna-paramita, manjushri, amitabha, vairocana)

-Terms with no local equivalent/words for things that don't exist outside of india (no precise english word that really means the exact same thing)
This is why words like yaksha were not translated.

-Words that have been left untranslated by previous translators (in other words there is a precedent) (Following the spirit of this we could also arrive at the conclusions that words like refuge and empowerment have precedent.

All five seem reasonable and workable to me. I find English translations of Buddhist texts that translate key terms such as Dharma to be problematic because they seem to introduce Problems. Example:

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit? I'm not familiar with those five rules.

He said that there are five instances where a word should be left untranslated (literally 五種不翻)

-If the word has multiple meanings (like arhart and bhagavat)

-Esoteric terms like mantras, incantations, etc

-Terms of reverence, if saying the word has some resonance (prajna-paramita, manjushri, amitabha, vairocana)

-Terms with no local equivalent/words for things that don't exist outside of india (no precise english word that really means the exact same thing)
This is why words like yaksha were not translated.

-Words that have been left untranslated by previous translators (in other words there is a precedent) (Following the spirit of this we could also arrive at the conclusions that words like refuge and empowerment have precedent.

Tibetans did not follow these rules, they translated everything. Thus, while these may be good guidelines, and I am in agreement with them, there is precedent in Tibetan translation standards for total translation, even names.

Tibetans did not follow these rules, they translated everything. Thus, while these may be good guidelines, and I am in agreement with them, there is precedent in Tibetan translation standards for total translation, even names.

Yes I know that tibetans translated everything and I know that what this thread is talking about tibetan texts, so maybe following tibetan translation rules is the right way to go, but then it raises the challenge of how to translate certain words and because many of these tects are being translated at the same time by different people you'll have several different translations given for the same term.

I mainly advocate for the standardized translations of liturgy. It seems crazy to me that if I memorized in english very common prayers or sutras (heart sutra, 21 taras, amitabha sutra, even the tibetan refuge and dedications) there is almost no chance that I would be able to go and chant with another english speaker who memorized the same prayer because we would have memorized a different translation.
This (and a few other reasons) are the reason english "chanting" sounds so terrible (or at best strange).
But again that's me on the soap box

Yes I know that tibetans translated everything and I know that what this thread is talking about tibetan texts, so maybe following tibetan translation rules is the right way to go, but then it raises the challenge of how to translate certain words and because many of these tects are being translated at the same time by different people you'll have several different translations given for the same term.

Yes, and eventually this will be ironed out. In the meantime, "let a thousand flowers bloom."

I mainly advocate for the standardized translations of liturgy. It seems crazy to me that if I memorized in english very common prayers or sutras (heart sutra, 21 taras, amitabha sutra, even the tibetan refuge and dedications) there is almost no chance that I would be able to go and chant with another english speaker who memorized the same prayer because we would have memorized a different translation.

I mainly advocate for the standardized translations of liturgy. It seems crazy to me that if I memorized in english very common prayers or sutras (heart sutra, 21 taras, amitabha sutra, even the tibetan refuge and dedications) there is almost no chance that I would be able to go and chant with another english speaker who memorized the same prayer because we would have memorized a different translation.

I really like it the way it is. It kind of creeps me out when religious organizations get standardized. I like the wild grassroots feel. I guess maybe this is my Catholic upbringing haunting me.

Personall I find the translation of Dudjom Rinpoche's hiistory of the nyingma school unreadable. Terms like promulgation make it a chore to read.I hope an alternate translation comes one day. In terms of dzogchen, certain terms a more accurate then others and can give a reader a taste of what is being communicated eg: dang/ reflection.